Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting – 16 February 2012
Date: 16 February 2012
This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council and updated. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16dec11-en.pdf
...
07:00 Los Angeles; 10:00 Washington DC; 15:00 London; 16:00 Paris; 00:00 Tokyo;
17 February 2012
04:00 Wellington
Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed.
GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u
Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)
1.1 Roll Call
1.2 Statement of interest updates
1.3 Review/amend agenda
1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures:
• 19 January 2012 GNSO Council minutes --approved on 16 February 2012. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12612.html
1.5. GNSO Pending Projects List http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf
• Review main changes.
• Comments and/or questions.
...
A consent agenda item is being added as a standard agenda item to provide for a simplified process to obtain Council approval on specific tasks.
• Approval of the Recommendations Report on IRTP B Rec 9 part 2 that Staff is proposing be sent to the Board.
Refer to the Recommendations Report: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-council-report-irtp-part-b-recommendation-9part2-06feb12-en.pdf
• Approval of the proposal to end the work on Whois access at this time.
• Approval of the termination of the Open Council DT.
Item 3: 'thick' Whois Final Issue Report (10 minutes)
...
Staff has now submitted the Final Issue Report, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf
which includes the report of comments received and additional updates as a result of the comments made. The GNSO Council will now consider the Final Issue Report and decide whether or not to initiate a PDP.
...
3.2 Reading of the motion (XYStéphane Van Gelder)
3.3 Discussion
3.3 Vote
...
As adopted by the Council on 22 June 2011 http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#201106-1 the Council requested Staff to provide a proposal designed to ensure a technically feasible approach can be developed to meet the following recommendation "prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation regarding the standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status messages regarding Registrar Lock status".
Staff submitted its recommendation on January 3, 2012 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html
A motion was presented at the Jan 19, 2012 meeting, but was withdrawn to give Staff and Council more time to fine tune. A new motion is presented today.
Refer to motion https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+16+February+2012
4.1 Reading of the motion (X YYoav Keren).
4.2 Discussion
4.3 Vote
Item 5: Cross Community Working Group Drafting Team (CCWG DT) (10 minutes)
On January 4, 2012, the CCWG Drafting Team sent the Council Chair its final recommendations with regard to the GNSO's approach on Community Working Groups.
Refer to:
Draft Principles for Cross‐Community Working Groups (CWGs)http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf
Council must now consider whether to approve these recommendations. A motion to that effect was made at the Jan 19 meeting and deferred to this meeting.
Refer to motionhttps://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+16+February+2012
5.1 Reading of the motion (Jonathan Robinson).
5.2 Discussion
5.3 Vote
Item 6: JIG letter to the Board (10 minutes)
...
2. If the GNSO does not approve option 1, the ccNSO will send a letter on its own. In that case, the GNSO must decide on what it wants to do, as we had approved sending a joint letter before http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201112
65.1 Update by staff (X Y)
6 5.2 Discussion
6 5.3 Next steps
Item 76: Costa Rica Weekend agenda (20 minutes)
At the Jan 19 Council meeting, it was suggested that our weekend sessions need to be focussed more on preparation work for the Council's week and less on updates. This is a discussion item on the proposed agenda.
76.1 Update and presentation of agenda (Wolf Ulrich Knoben Ulrich)
7 6.2 Agenda for GNSO Council meeting with the Board
7 6.3 Agenda for GNSO Council meeting with the GAC
7 6.4 Agenda for GNSO Council lunch with the ccNSO
7 6.5 Discussion
Item 87: Red Cross and Olympic Committee names (20 minutes)
A GNSO Drafting Team is working on a charter to determine how to handle the protection of RC and IOC names under the new gTLD program. This agenda item is to provide the Council with an update on that work.
87.1 Update by staff (X Y)
8 7.2 Discussion
Item 98: GNSO liaison to the ccNSO (5 minutes)
Olga Cavalli had served as GNSO Council liaison to the ccNSO, but has now left the GNSO Council. Therefore the GNSO Council must now appoint a new liaison to the ccNSO.
98.1 Call for volunteers
9 8.2 Discussion
Item 109: Any Other Business (5 minutes)
Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3)
9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions:
1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House;
2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (“PDP”) Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House;
3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (“GNSO Supermajority”);
4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation;
5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and
6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that “a two-thirds vote of the council” demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision.
Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4)
...